Judicial precedent and the left; what's ours is ours and what's yours is open to negotiation.

The diplomacy of the Soviet Union was described as being based on the principle of "what is ours is ours; what is yours is open to negotiation.

That's similar to the way the left views judicial precedent.

In relation to a case concerning whether or not a person should be subject to trials for the same crime by both a State and the Federal government uber left wing Justice Kagan said

"Part of what stare decisis[precedent] is, is a kind of doctrine of humility, where we say we are really uncomfortable throwing over 170-year-old rules that 30 justices have approved just because we think we can kind of do it better."

In that case the power of the Federal government to reprosecute someone who is disliked by the left could be limited; something Kagan would clearly be uncomfortable with.

However the entire modern activist judicial agenda ranging from legalizing pornography and legalizing abortion to redefining marriage is all based on overturning precedent. For more than 170 years no one in the government or the judiciary thought that abortion was protected by the Constitution, that pornography was free speech, or that the Federal government could redefine marriage.

The only way to understand Kagan's statement is if we assume that to her precedent is only defined when the Court rules in favor of a leftist position.  Essentially only leftist decisions have any weight and only leftist decisions bind future courts.

We saw this a while ago when the Supreme Court reconsidered abortion.  The activist judges won the day by declaring that changing Roe v. Wade in any way would be bad because it would be seen as the Court changing its mind.  Yet the original Roe v. Wade was precisely that. The only difference is that the left favors abortion for any reason at any time in pregnancy and they oppose any limitation on abortion.

This is just one more example of the fundamental dishonesty of activist judges.